70 replies to this topic

[Sultan]

I've heard mixed opinions on this, I'd like to present it for discussion, while there doesn't appear to be any case law that I know of in favor of consumers for requests made after the 30 days, obviously something is wrong with the idea that after 30 days a CA can simply ignore consumers when they request validation.

SCENARIO;

Consider the many JDB's who simply pop-up on consumer reports in which case they (the consumer) were not sent an initial notice, (for example they obtain their own report(s) every 90 days, and learned themselves that an item was placed more than 30 days ago)

• they never received any notice of the debt in the first place

• now the debt is more than 30 days old

• obviously the initial 30 day DV period afforded to consumers under § 809. Validation of debts has past

• consumer wasn't notified of the debt and had no timely opportunity request DV under FDCPA

How would this be fair or just for consumers?

Is this a loophole for the agencies? are these dirty tricks ways for them to manipulate the system against consumers?

Someone tried to tell me on another forum that the CA can simply lie and they sent notice, even if they didn't and do not need to prove they did.

I'd really like to hear what others think about this important issue.

If you took time to look at this thread please feel free to comment,
this isn't about having a law degree or being an expert its about strength in
numbers and sharp people taking a stand for a good cause and putting their
heads together more than anything. Obviously the more that are aware, the
better the chances for clarity or resolution.

[BeachDweller]

Section 623 of the FCRA discusses disputed information and how a "person" including a collection agency representative must handle a debt validation. It does not make mention of the 30 days as does the FDCPA, so there are protections extended to consumers. It's a good idea to become familiar with the FCRA sections 605, 611 and 623 for general knowledge as far too many consumers simply look at the FDCPA.

[Fustrated]

Bump & subscribe

[Newbie13]

I would love to hear more opinions on this, too.

3 years ago, I got a letter from a CA -that was collecting for a JDB that was not licenced in my state. At this point- nothing was on my CR about the account- from anyone.
I DV'd them, they repsonded saygin that they have no docs and that they returned to account to the "original creditor" (meaning, the JDB, not the actual OC- which was a utility company. Alleged (bogus) debt is more than five years old). So I thought that was the end of it.. ha!

Anyway - much later on I realized tha the JDB put it on my credit reoprt a couple of months after it was returned to them- no letter or anything..

NOw I wish I had DV'd both companies to make it more clear cut, but since I only DV'd the assinged CA, I dont' know what kind of leg I have to stand on ..
I recently DV'd the JDB (twice, as I havent' heard any response from the DV I sent earlier this summer- although they did stick it on TU, when it was previously only on EX and EQ).
(As an aside, I also notice that the JDB JUST got licenced in my state.. like in the last month- but they sure werent' the whole time they'd been reporting)

We'll see what happens- but if anyone had a similar experience, please share!

Edited by Newbie13, 15 August 2007 - 09:00 AM.

[adventurer07]

I think I understand the OP's meaning to the post. I've seen a lot of discussion about this in the past and it IS a very confusing aspect. It's also the number one thing that I've seen my CAs use as a way to get me to fall in line and pay an alleged debt. They quote a small part of the statute, trying to use ignorance and fear against you. Fortunately, they are misusing the FDCPA and there are other recourses. Even my very experienced NACA attorney says it's a 'gray' area of the statutes. But you only know that by doing your homework and being knowledgeable.

If the CA has proof of mailing and shows that in court, it's a "their word against yours" scenario and you have no proof you DIDN'T receive it - as mail is assumed to be delivered. Now if you have proof of a change of address sent to the Post Office and they show that address, then you've got a case but who keeps that stuff after two years? or 3? Or 5? Or at all? Some might once they've joined CB but I doubt they would prior to CB. (I've moved many times and never forwarded my mail - I just changed my address with the companies I worked with - Now I use a PO Box with a forward established so I never have to worry about it - if I don't get mail now it's because it was never sent and I can prove that.).

The reason I mention this is because I am currently faced with this. We're NOT suing right now even though we have them in a FDCPA violation (two CAs trying to collect the same debt at the same time) because it's not clear WHAT they have that we don't know about. I'm trying to get them to send me copies so I can know how to move forward. That and I'm getting more violations which just makes my case stronger.

The thing I remember most is PsychDoc's "litigious mindset". The CA is looking for something to use against you - you then have the responsibility to take that defense and nullify it. Shred it apart and show them they have no basis. Once you show that, things should fall in place. It's when people DON'T look at each situation but instead try to put everything into the same box. They apply one remedy to every situation and then get into a problem.

If they respond to your FDCPA quotation saying it doesn't apply, then use the FCRA against them. If they respond to the FCRA then use the FBCA if it applies. Just because they SAY you can't use the FDCPA doesn't mean you can't or that you can't use something else. The burden is on you to find the legal statutes that apply to your situation or ask for help doing so. This forum provides a lot of advice on how to write letters for this stuff and I think that's valuable. It teaches the mindset needed to tailor legal responses rather than just saying, "You can't do that because I or the law says so".

Each situation is unique - some elements might be the same but they all need to be treated independently. You HAVE to look at every CA and see how the law applies for that situation. I wouldn't dream of sending a second DV letter to the CAs that are in violation with me currently. I completely skipped that step and reported them to the BBB and AG. You have to decide based on each situation the appropriate action to take. And I think some people are just looking for a "one size fits all" solution.

I rewrite every letter I send to tailor it to each situation. Sometimes I might not change much - a little verbiage here and there but that way I make sure I evaluate each situation. It takes trial and error and time.

That's just my two cents for what it's worth. Bear in mind I've been doing this since May on my own but only been with CB since July (one month). I'm still learning but that's what I've learned. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood something.

[adventurer07]

I would love to hear more opinions on this, too.

3 years ago, I got a letter from a CA -that was collecting for a JDB that was not licenced in my state. At this point- nothing was on my CR about the account- from anyone.
I DV'd them, they repsonded saygin that they have no docs and that they returned to account to the "original creditor" (meaning, the JDB, not the actual OC- which was a utility company. Alleged (bogus) debt is more than five years old). So I thought that was the end of it.. ha!

Anyway - much later on I realized tha the JDB put it on my credit reoprt a couple of months after it was returned to them- no letter or anything..

NOw I wish I had DV'd both companies to make it more clear cut, but since I only DV'd the assinged CA, I dont' know what kind of leg I have to stand on ..
I recently DV'd the JDB (twice, as I havent' heard any response from the DV I sent earlier this summer- although they did stick it on TU, when it was previously only on EX and EQ).
(As an aside, I also notice that the JDB JUST got licenced in my state.. like in the last month- but they sure werent' the whole time they'd been reporting)

We'll see what happens- but if anyone had a similar experience, please share!

It's too bad you didn't use that lack of licensing against the JDB - that could have resolved it right then.

Looks like a case of Live and Learn to me!

Speaking of which, I'm going to do a post about licensing as I'm still struggling with that. Hopefully you can chime in your experiences?

[DEcredit]

§ 809.(a) of the FDCPA states that within 5 days of the INITIAL communication with the consumer, a debt collector must send you a written notice notifying you of your rights unless those rights are included in the initial communication.

§ 809.(b ) states that if you dispute the claim within 30 days of receiving this notification in part (a), they must cease collections activities until they validate the debt.

A JDB who slaps a collections account on your credit report has NOT communicated with you. Even if a court ruled that your credit report counts as an indirect communication, the 30 days would start from the time you became aware of it. Besides, a tradeline notation on your credit report does not communicate your rights as prescribed in section § 809.(a). Therefore, in your scenario, if you DVd the JDB and they ignored your demand for validation, they would be in violation of the above two provisions of the FDCPA.

Edited by DEcredit, 15 August 2007 - 09:52 AM.

[Jen23514]

Warning: I might be jumping around a bit here, but there were a few thoughts running through my mind regarding this.



If you DV a JDB within the first 30 days of a letter sent to you, they don't HAVE to validate...they only have to if they want to continue collection activity.



To add a little more to DE's post...

The FDCPA, http://www.ftc.gov/o...fdcpact.htm#809

� 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --

(1) the amount of the debt;

(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;

(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;

(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and

(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

( 6 ) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

If the JDB/CA has anything that resembles notification to you via mail, the CA is establishing when the first 30 days begins. It's a horrible standard really..... we CMRR to prove our communication, but they don't have to. What prevents them from backdating a letter? Other than the risk of perjury (and can you prove that?), nothing.

Can they put it on your report without notifying you? Sure.

Do they have to dun you when they put it on your report? Nothing I know of says they do.

Is it fair (as you asked)? No.




There are pros and cons when they report first, dun later....

First of all, if they dun you and do not report, you only have the backing of the FDCPA behind you. This is ok if you DV within the first 30 days and actually have read the FDCPA and know what is allowed and what is not. If you ask for validation properly, they must cease collection activity. After 30 days, you can still DV, but they do not have to stop.


If they report first (or at all), then the JDB/CA has responsibilities as furnishers of information. Then you have the teeth (baby teeth, mind you) of the FCRA and FDCPA behind you.... but only if you've read and understand them.


Always go into this with a litigious mindset.... what would a judge think of this letter? Am I asking for the proper information in this letter? Am I asking for something that is not required?

Always think ahead, like a chess game. If "A" happens, what will I do? If "B" happens, what is my next step.

Your right to dispute, under the FCRA never goes away.. In fact, if there is a 30 day limit at all.... it is the 30 days the CRA has to investigate your dispute. The JDB/CA does not have to validate under a FDCPA request at anytime (unless it's TX - - correct me if I'm wrong).

Also, you can ask for validation anytime. Do not let the fact you've ignored that dunning letter for 6 mos stop you.


If a JDB pops up on your credit report and you have not received any prior communication from the JDB/CA, then you can not underestimate the importance of an "unknown DV". IMO, this constitutes "initial communication" and then they have 5 days to respond. If they don't, it's a violation, and it's step one in building a case against them. But that alone is not enough to sue. You need to build a case.

The only way to build a case is to understand the very laws you're asking for protection under.

I think the biggest mistake when people send disputes or DVs is that they haven't completely read the FDCPA or FCRA. They know they can ask for validation, but don't know the specifics. Many times they send the DV with the checklist of information for the JDV/CA to provide. Hardly any of that is required and it's the most passed around DV on the internet.... I think it's worthless personally.


Maybe i'm not answering your question here, but I think there are a lot more options and things to consider than many people realize. Out of personal experience (and having at the beginning of my journey over 2 doz CAs after me)..... 90% of those CAs violated either the FCRA (as DFs) or the FDCPA. In fact, it maybe a higher percentage.


Beachdweller said:

Section 623 of the FCRA discusses disputed information and how a "person" including a collection agency representative must handle a debt validation. It does not make mention of the 30 days as does the FDCPA, so there are protections extended to consumers. It's a good idea to become familiar with the FCRA sections 605, 611 and 623 for general knowledge as far too many consumers simply look at the FDCPA.

This is true. the FDCPA and FCRA are not things you can only read once and understand and remember. There are MANY applicable sections once a JDB/CA adds something to your report, as in your scenario below.

[adventurer07]

JVF - that's great - very succinct. I've printed it for my reference section so I can refer to it in the future for guidance.

I will echo the statement that it requires multiple readings to understand the statutes. I always reread the sections that apply to that specific issue before sending to make sure I haven't missed anything.

The bad part is it's huge and cumbersome and hard to remember all the different elements - which is why I'm SO glad CB is here to bounce ideas off of and strategize with. I'd be lost without it, no matter how much I read the statutes. I'm not a lawyer but I consider myself to be of at least average intelligence so I get concepts pretty easily. Even so, I sometimes get overwhelmed by all of it. When I do, I go looking for help.

[Beki]

Wondering about what needs to be included in a dispute letter...

So, it seems that, if past the initial 30 day window after first notice from a ca, one would have to "dispute" the information, and not request validation?

FCRA section 623 (8) (D) Submitting a notice of dispute-A consumer who seeks to dispute the
accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such
person at the address specified by the person for such notices that-
(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;
(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and
(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

Does that mean that a dispute letter (sent, say, a year after the first letter from CA) would have to include all three parts? Am I missing something that changes the meaning of this? (I did read all three sections posted in the pp).

[Jen23514]

here's a quick reference.

http://creditboards....s...180577&st=0


Beki:

My DV#1 is usually short and to the point. Rarely is more than this:

I am in receipt of my credit report and it states that you are trying to collect on an account from XXX Bastard Company. (or you could write : this is in response to our recent phone conversation with one of your representatives who said they are trying to collect for…… XXXX)

Please provide validation of the above account pursuant to the FDCPA. I dispute all claims of your October 1 letter in their entirety.

Also, due to my hectic work schedule, it is inconvenient for you to contact me by phone at any time or place. Communication with me through my workplace is also prohibited. All communication should be done via US mail.

[Sultan]

excellent discussion.

I'd like to hear more opinions & input;

pryan, radi8, shawnee, others? are you listening ..

[pryan67]

I've heard mixed opinions on this, I'd like to present it for discussion, while there doesn't appear to be any case law that I know of in favor of consumers for requests made after the 30 days, obviously something is wrong with the idea that after 30 days a CA can simply ignore consumers when they request validation.

SCENARIO;

Consider the many JDB's who simply pop-up on consumer reports in which case they (the consumer) were not sent an initial notice, (for example they obtain their own report(s) every 90 days, and learned themselves that an item was placed more than 30 days ago)

• they never received any notice of the debt in the first place

• now the debt is more than 30 days old

• obviously the initial 30 day DV period afforded to consumers under § 809. Validation of debts has past actually, it has NOT past...it never began...therefore it never ended

• consumer wasn't notified of the debt and had no timely opportunity request DV under FDCPA

How would this be fair or just for consumers? it's not...but CAs do it because most consumers let them get away with it


Is this a loophole for the agencies? are these dirty tricks ways for them to manipulate the system against consumers? not really...since an educated consumer knows better


Someone tried to tell me on another forum that the CA can simply lie and they sent notice, even if they didn't and do not need to prove they did. untrue...they have to prove that their records show that it was mailed...and that's enough though


I'd really like to hear what others think about this important issue.

If you took time to look at this thread please feel free to comment,
this isn't about having a law degree or being an expert its about strength in
numbers and sharp people taking a stand for a good cause and putting their
heads together more than anything. Obviously the more that are aware, the
better the chances for clarity or resolution.

IMO, while a CA doesn't have to cease collection activity if you DV outside of the 30 days...they DO:


1. have to report it as in dispute to the CRAs
2. have some sort of proof that it IS yours, since otherwise they're reporting information which they have reason to believe is inaccurate
3. have to notify ANYONE that they communicate information concerning the debt that it's in dispute (INCLUDING the consumer IMO)

[ncmomgoinczy]

Hm, very interesting.

This is my situation........Pre CBs

I had an account on my CR by a CA back in 2005. I contacted the CA right at the time I recieved my CR. They told me they no longer have the account, it went back to the OC. I said fine. Because that account was not being reported I disputed online and it was deleted.

Two years later, just shy of being a CB member I get my CR and the account was back on. So I read and join CB. The account is now listed with a different CA. So I dispute it w/ EQ w/ a reinsertion letter because that's what I thought happened.

Not only did they verify it but the added it to TU and EX. So now I DV'd CMRRR with the CA and disputed with the CRAs via CMRRR.

My point in telling you this........

I recieved my FIRST CA letter right after I disputed with them before I DV'd. The account had been on my CR for two years and I didn't know it was sold/transferred, put back on....nothing. That's because the CA never attempted to collect the debt. TWO YEARS!!!!!

We well soon see what the outcome will be.

[waydizzy]

Sultan - I don't have much to add, but I am thoroughly enjoying your in-depth series of topics lately!

[Sultan]

*Bump* for the evening crowd - still looking for as much input as possible on this issue.

for waydizzy ..

I appreciate you mentioning that

pryan ..

Great, thank you for taking to time to offer your valuable opinion and knowledge.

[Sultan]

I've learned & researched some very interesting information with regards to the uniform commercial code and JDB's, I'll post more on that later..


We still need more input on this - more opinions please

[walterg55]

I would like to chime in with a little different angle. I live in TX and as has been well posted TX has very good consumer laws when it comes to CA's and their obligations. I have not had to use any federal law to achieve my goals. What I find difficult to believe is that other states do not have similar statutes. TX law appears to be based almost directly on the Fed rules and TX law has advantages and weaknesses when compared to the fed also.. I think folks would be well advised to a thorough check of state laws before jumping right to the Fed rules. I suspect that we would find there are some laws that offer several advantages; primarily that state judges are much more inclined to apply state law than unfamiliar fed rules. In Texas, the penalties are both civil and criminal which adds a rather unpleasant layer for a CA to consider. Other states may well be the same. I certainly believe that many states may not have good laws for consumers and the fed rules are the refuge there but I bet more states have good law than we currently think. There is a fixation on Fed rules that I think we get hung up on and this post certainly points out the strengths and weaknesses of the Fed side while we may overlook a whole new approach that likely has pluses and minuses too.

Edited by walterg55, 17 August 2007 - 04:33 PM.

[DEcredit]

Wondering about what needs to be included in a dispute letter...

So, it seems that, if past the initial 30 day window after first notice from a ca, one would have to "dispute" the information, and not request validation?

FCRA section 623 (8) (D) Submitting a notice of dispute-A consumer who seeks to dispute the
accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such
person at the address specified by the person for such notices that-
(i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;
(ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and
(iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute.

Does that mean that a dispute letter (sent, say, a year after the first letter from CA) would have to include all three parts? Am I missing something that changes the meaning of this? (I did read all three sections posted in the pp).

I found an interesting interpretation of the FDCPA from the California Dept. of Consumer Affairs relating specifically to the construction of the DV notice.

4. The debtor may require verification of the debt’s existence, amount, or anything else. The
debtor can require a debt collection agency to verify the existence or amount of a debt that the
debtor disputes or may dispute. In order to exercise that right, the debtor must notify the debt
collection agency in writing and within 30 days after the debtor first receives the verification
notice. The debtor can either inform the debt collection agency (in writing) that the debtor
disputes the debt, or some portion of it, or ask the debt collection agency (in writing) to provide
verification of the debt or some aspect of it. The debtor’s communication is not subject to
technical requirements, and need only question the demand for payment in some way. For
instance, it may consist of (a) an inquiry about the origin or date of the alleged debt, (b ) a request
to verify its enforceability, (c ) an assertion that the amount demanded is incorrect, (d) an assertion
that nothing is owing, (e) an assertion that the debt is owing by someone else, (f) a question
concerning the fact or amount of any previous payments, or (g) an expression of some other
concern or question relating to the debt. All the debtor must do is send the collector a letter, or
other written communication (such as an e-mail message), that includes the statement, “I dispute
the debt,” with the debtor’s name and a description of the alleged debt.

5. The debtor may require verification of the existence or unpaid balance of a judgment. The
debtor similarly has a similar right to require a debt collection agency to verify the existence,
validity of, or amount owing under, a court judgment against the debtor. In order to exercise that
right, the debtor must contact the debt collection agency in writing and within 30 days after the
debtor receives the verification notice, inform it that the debtor disputes the existence or validity
of the judgment, or the amount demanded, and that the debtor requests verification of the
existence, validity or unpaid balance of the judgment debt. The debtor's communication is not
subject to technical requirements, and need only question the demand for payment. For instance,
the debtor might question (a) the existence or validity of the judgment, (b ) the capacity of the
court to issue it, (c ) the amount of the original debt, (d) the amount of the judgment debt (the
asserted (payoff amount�), (e) the legitimacy or amount of any of its components, (f) the fact or
amount of any previous payments or recoveries, (g) the identity of the judgment debtor, or (h)
anything else relating to the judgment or the debt that it represents.-8

This would seem to indicate that there are no hard and fast rules as to the precise wording of the DV, as long as it communicates to the CA that something about the debt is in question. The use of the term "I dispute..." is not necessarily required either as courts in their rulings have stated that "a request for validation (or verification)" is sufficient.

The full California Dept. of Consumer Affairs interpretation of the FDCPA can be found here:

http://www.dca.ca.go...guides/dc_2.pdf

and provides a handy "layman's terms" explanation and interpretation of the Act.

Edited by DEcredit, 17 August 2007 - 04:38 PM.

[Sultan]

I would like to chime in with a little different angle. I live in TX and as has been well posted TX has very good consumer laws when it comes to CA's and their obligations. I have not had to use any federal law to achieve my goals. What I find difficult to believe is that other states do not have similar statutes.

It's true that Texas has some of the best consumer protection laws .. for example; in Texas you may request validation even beyond the initial 30 day period and the same rules apply. Hopefully more of us will begin to become aware that their are certain weaknesses with the FCRA & FDCPA which can be exploited so that we can push to amend and reform the federal laws, and in act more thorough state protection laws. Obviously the need is great

Thankfully with debt purchasing becoming more & more common there are other means of protection under the PROOF OF TITLE UNDER UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. It seems that many unknowing people have paid debts because they were being; pressured, bothered, or badgered into it even when they didn't owe the money this is a good article http://www.ftc.gov/o...4/12/camco.shtm

If you are sued by a JDB, send a certified letter requesting assignment or assignments
necessary to show title in plaintiff under UCC §9-406. The way §9-406 is written the debt buyer is not entitled to payment unless it provides a copy of the assignment(s). (Obviously affidavit of debt isn't going to work for them) Wait about 10 days after receipt and then move to dismiss on the ground that there is no obligation to pay.


Again the problem being that many of the JDB's simply 'APPEAR' on peoples report(s) since consumers are not properly notified of the debt they are not afforded the opportunity for a timely DV under the federal law rules. Texas has the right idea IMO.

[Sultan]

any other thoughts?

radi8, crammit? anyone?

[cajunbulldog1]

Sultan I have participated on about 8 different consumer boards and this topic here always brings some real interesting discussions. I really wish they would amend the Fdcpa to remove that thirty day notice so the consumer could dispute at any time with the full rights afforded under Fdcpa. I think this would be a very fair ruling to put the consumer and the collector on even ground regardless of debt's age.

[CramItCCCAs]

any other thoughts?

radi8, crammit? anyone?

It's a useful discusion Sultan and there can't be enough posts about these issues, but the info is here, it's not at everyones immediate finger tips all the time and that's why rekindling subjects or bumping posts is so valuable, you never know who can use the info and when they need it. That said we all need to be fimiliar with the search features, because the information here is invaluable, the people here who contribute are the formost experts on these issues in the country and if you asked me who I'd want advising me on serious credit CRA/CA/OC issues, a lawyer in my affluant home town, or some of the vets here, I'll take the vets here

That said I completely agree with pryan about the 30 days, you don't loose your right validate, a CA can simply assume the debt is yours after 30 days. We've debated this many times lots of point of views but in 10 years of discussing it I've never been convinced otherwise.

[Hopelesscred]

I am going to take a stab at this one..

I don't see how a consumer ever loses his/her right to challenge incomplete and incorrect information that is being reported. I would think where the FDCPA is lacking, the FCRA, specifically section 623, applies.

Whether you call it validation or verification, you are challenging information that is damaging to your financial well- being. The problem most inexperienced members run into (myself included) is structuring the disputes in such a way that it brings about the desired results.

Whereas the FDCPA outlines the 30 day window for DV, if a CA refuses to comply to your request but does not report, there is no violation. Once they decide to report this information, the FCRA kicks in, plus case law supporting the fact that reporting is tantamount to collection activitiy, and of course the 1-2 punch.

Simply put, if they are reporting and cannot prove it, the TL must be removed.

The issue becomes a bit trickier with OCs who will most likely have records but will ignore your requests unless forced to do so. That is the reason why it is so important to be mindful of SOL.

Edited by Hopelesscred, 12 October 2007 - 03:13 PM.

[gweedoh]

Section 623 of the FCRA discusses disputed information and how a "person" including a collection agency representative must handle a debt validation. It does not make mention of the 30 days as does the FDCPA, so there are protections extended to consumers. It's a good idea to become familiar with the FCRA sections 605, 611 and 623 for general knowledge as far too many consumers simply look at the FDCPA.

This is the trick. :good:

FDCPA sets a 30 day period for a consumer to respond and it begins when the letter was received. Case law has upheld that if a CA can demonstrate that the dunning letter was sent out with their regular outgoing business mail to the consumer's last known address, their notification requirement has been met. Fair or not, a standard had to be set. Otherwise every consumer on the plant could say "I never got it" and because there would be no proof of not getting something, it would be an airtight argument if it was allowed to stand.

As BeachDweller pointed out, the disputing process is covered in the FCRA as well as the FDCPA. The only drawback is per FCRA 621(B), civil penalties are prohibited for violations of 623(a)(1) so you can't nail a CA for reporting inaccurate information under the FCRA.

Edited by gweedoh, 12 October 2007 - 04:04 PM.